• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    3 days ago

    It’s literally the opposite. It’s very rare to work for a company that will consistently give you cost of living and performance increases that would outweigh a lateral move to another company. Someone who stays with the same company for more than five years is likely losing money to stay there.

    • figjam@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      “I know these assholes and what to expect from them. Moving to a new company means a whole new crop of assholes and unspoken rules that I have to learn to succeed. Pass.”

    • moopet@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not going somewhere else to get more money isn’t the same as losing money. That’s like saying I’m saving money by not buying $expensive_item when I wouldn’t buy that type of thing anyway.

      If I’m a painter, I’m not losing money by not being the CEO of RandomOtherCorp. Conflate ye not.

      • twopi@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        2 days ago

        It is though. That is the literal definition of opportunity cost.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        If you’re a first year painter working for a general contractor, you’re going to be paid less than a more experienced painter. After five years, you’ll be able to get more money from another general contractor applying as a painter with five years experience. You’re less likely to do that if you like working for your current general contractor.